Judgment 1. This application has been filed to transfer the matrimonial case no. 23 of 2006 from Jehanabad to the Family Court at Patna. Notices issued to the Opposite Party have been received on 4.11.2007. Opposite Party had not chosen to appear but has addressed a letter to this court which is flag-"X". 2. It is admitted by both the parties that the Opposite Party was married to the petitioner on 13.3.2002 and they have a son, who was born on 16.12.2002. The Opposite Party filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights and in his application has stated that he works in a church as a social worker and also says that his wife refused to live with him at the address given in the application and filed the matrimonial case no. 23/2006 stating that although he is a resident of Mohalla Murli Hill, P.S. Kotwali in the district of Gaya he is presently residing at Tehta Math P.S. Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad where he is working with the church and therefore, he has filed a case at Jehanabad. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot attend the court at Jehanabad as she has no source of income and it is very difficult for her to travel on each and every date to Jehanabad with a small child and as such prayed to transfer the case to the Patna Family Court. 4. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the letter which was sent by the Opposite Party to the court after receiving the notice which was served on him on 4.11.2007. The present letter has been received in this court on 12.11.2007 i.e. after service of notice which speaks volumes about the attitude of the Opposite Party. In the said letter the complaint of the Opposite Party is that while he was in Patna on 3.11.2007 the brother of the petitioner assaulted him and also threatened him by saying that he, the Opposite Party should withdraw the suit bearing no. 23/2006. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she and her family live at Danapur and they could not have knowledge that the Opposite Party would be visiting Patna on 3.11.2007. It appears that the story has been made up after he has recieved the notice issued by this court on 4.11.2007. 23/2006. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she and her family live at Danapur and they could not have knowledge that the Opposite Party would be visiting Patna on 3.11.2007. It appears that the story has been made up after he has recieved the notice issued by this court on 4.11.2007. In this matter the explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted by this court. The Opposite Party has not filed any case cr Sanha to substantiate the allegation made at flag-"X" regarding the allegations in the petition. 6. Learned counsel submits that three witness including the husband has been examined in this case. It is further submitted that a petition for recall of the Opposite Party for re-examination was also filed at the Family Court at Jehanabad, but learned counsel does not know what order was passed by the Family Court on the said petition. 7. In the facts of this case, I find that the petitioner has genuine grounds for not being able to pursue her case at Jehanabad and she faces extreme inconvenience in doing so. I therefore, direct that the matrimonial case no. 23/2006 filed by the Opposite Party, Santosh Kumar should be transferred to the Family Court at Patna. 8. With the aforesaid observation this application is allowed.